On 27 Mar, 01:53, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...



Why it is the underlying reason is that:

1) chess is a closed system (as I have said already)
2) each side has equal forces, arranged symmetrically (which is
obvious even to a five-year-old)
3) white is only half a move ahead at the start, which is insufficient
to win by force, and certainly very insufficient to lose by force.

If you know different... give your analysis.

Contrary to your absurd trolling assertion, above, all of these things
have been asserted before, by me.

Those things might be reasons for perfectly played
chess leading to a draw, but they don't explain
the observed draw rates. e.g. each of these alleged
factors is present for both humans and computers,
yet they have completely different draw rates.


The differing draw rates for computers is that in general there is a
big disparity between the effective playing strengths of the two sides
(as I already explained).

We've already established that *several* factors *contribute* to human
draw rates, but the FACT that chess is a draw is the underlying
reason.

As has been pointed out numerous times, cluelessly
saying the same thing over and over is evidence
of absolutely nothing.

Quantum mechanics explains just about everything to do with
matter/light etc. You have not been able to use your
"chess is a draw" theory to explain a single thing.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. It explains that chess is a draw. That
is a single thing. Therefore, you're wrong. Still.

That's just repeating your hypothesis. "Chess is a draw. That
explains why chess is a draw."


No, you can't read. The reason why chess is a draw is that:

1) it is a closed system
2) it consists of two sides of equal forces
3) neither side has a significant advantage at the beginning.
4) if neither side goes badly wrong, neither side can win.

No possibility at all.

That's the *explanation* part, ****WIT.

ALL the evidence supports this explanation of how chess works. All of
it.

How many times do you need to be told this before it sinks in,
****WIT?

Evolution/quantum mechanics provide explanations
for a vast array of important questions.


Yes, and the former is likely a good explanation. The latter may or
may not be (the jury is still out).



Scientifically, you've got a reasonable hypothesis that
has not yet been shown to have any bearing on the
matter under discussion. I'm sorry if you don't like
that.

Oh, but it does. If chess were a win for white there would be fewer
draws. (Like I already stated, illiterate moron).

Supply some evidence for this. (Restating something is not evidence)


Restating EVIDENCE is evidence. Jesus you're an illiterate.

It's called INFORMATOR, ****wit.

Weren't you suspicious when the Creationists offered to pay
you to argue the "scientific" position?

Creationists are not scientific. Informator is scientific. It's east
to tell that Informator is scientific: evaluations are constantly
refined and tweaked.

Not Creationism. That's set in stone. Take it or leave it.

You convey the impression of your being completely clueless about
science, the nature of research, the nature of paradigms, all that.

We've established that you're a moron. The only remaining question is:
exactly *how* moronic are you? This one could run and run, and the
longer it runs, the more moronic you *become*.

Wanna try again?

On 27 Mar, 05:28, "SBD" wrote:
I like the idea. It would mean that endgame preparation would take on
increased importance.

Also, it may well be that it could promote interest in the game -
people follow many games and sports because they *think* they
understand them or can accurately follow them; from my experience,
often they do not understand basic concepts.

But a stripped-down game, with fewer pieces - 6 in total, would be one
that would be apparently easy - with the emphasis on apparently.

But chess seems bent on self-destruction instead, looking for faster
time controls and other silly changes as making the game more
accessible.

Mining the databases also can lead to good ideas - when I review the
MAMS book I intend to discuss this idea of computer as slave versus
master. I found a very neat Q+B versus Q+P that was a forced win for
white, and from that was able to develop (with the help of a friend
who specializes in miniatures, problems with less than 7 pieces) a
very nice miniature mate in 11. There are very few longmovers of this
length that are miniatures, and even fewer with this type of material.
Computers can tie us down to their advice, or as the MAMS book says,
it can make composers of all of us, whether players or problemists.

Hello Dr. Dowd

I have but one question: how many top chessplayers will like the idea,
do you imagine?

Regards
Mark

On 27 Mar, 17:03, "David Kane" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

ups.com...

I like the idea. It would mean that endgame preparation would take on
increased importance.

Are you saying that you like the idea in the way I proposed it
(as an alternate to some of the unconventional blitz tie-breaks
that have been employed) or as sort of a checkers-style
(play both sides of given position) approach to the game?

I'm not ready to go the latter route. I think other steps I've
discussed have a good chance of increasing the contestedness
of games and reducing the draw rates.


Why is it so important to REDUCE draw rates? That REDUCES the quality
of the games.

If your local grocery store reduced the quality of the food which it
sells, would it sell more food, or less, do you think? Would the
store's revenue increase or decrease?

On 27 Mar, 03:52, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 26 Mar, 17:13, "David Kane" wrote:
"Dr A. N. Walker" wrote in
...

In article .com,
Mark Houlsby wrote:
[...]
Somewhat on the other hand, I think the example of endgame
tablebases ought to make us very wary of claiming any knowledge of
the theoretical outcome of any level-ish position.
Define "level-ish". A position is level, or it's not.

In terms of the theoretical tablebase result, then of course
there are only drawn positions and won positions. But take, eg., a
"level" middlegame in which the major pieces are about to come off
down the one open file, most minor pieces have come off, and the pawns
are balanced, with no apparent weaknesses. I and my opponents have
often abandoned such positions as draws; on the other hand, when
forced to play them out by IM/GM opposition, the draw can seem less
obvious .... I have no idea what a 14-man tablebase would make of a
general KB5PvsKN5P position; perhaps these positions are more often
theoretical wins than we expect [in the absence of humanly-obvious
weaknesses] or perhaps there is still a wide drawing margin.

When is an edge
meaningful in an endgame?

In [eg] R&P endings, we are still a long way from a full
understanding of [eg] KRPPvsKRPP. An "edge" could consist of a R
on the 7th, or a protected passed pawn, or a cut-off opposing king.
Even with full 6-piece tablebases, these positions are often still
impenetrable.

Experience had
been that KQvKR and KBBvKN were respectively usually an "easy" win
and a draw, resp; the computer has shown that both are "difficult"
wins from general positions.
KQkr *is* easy for the side with the Queen. Even I can do it, and I'm
a patzer. It's just a question of learning the patterns.

Sure. But pre-computer, you didn't have to learn patterns.
Everyone [except -- to their credit -- Freeborough and Ranken, AFAIK]
"knew" that you just had to drive the K back, separate K&R, and then
there would be a fork. Indeed, I twice reached KQvKR in tournament
games whereupon my opponents resigned. I don't think *that* would
happen today, unless they were particularly clueless.

No doubt the
same is true of KBBkn.

Yes, but [AFAIK] no human has mastered those patterns. We
can test fairly simple heuristics against the database -- for KQKR,
half-a-dozen simple rules, some short analysis, and a handful of
memorised positions will guarantee the win, whereas KBBKN seems to
be an order of magnitude harder.

[...] All of
this is rather off-topic, however interesting.

Perhaps off-topic to the thread of "should GMs be allowed to
score half-point draws whenever they like", but not to the group.

In fact, an interesting experiment would be to have
GMs play tablebase positions against each other
and develop human WLD statistics which could
then be compared to the theoretical results. This
might teach us something about human play.

You mean, that humans don't play very well compared with tablebases? I
think we already know that.

That wouldn't be the only thing that could be learned. We might be able
to see what sort of positions tend to produce certain outcomes, and
compare those to the theoretical result.


How many top players would go for this, do you think?



I suspect we'd find all sorts of interesting things -
theoretical draws with a low draw rate,

Why is that interesting? Who wants to watch a GM play badly?

Chess fans who vote overwhelmingly that their
favorite games are decisive ones.


Uh huh, how many top players would be prepared to lower their game in
order to please these chess fans, do you think?



theoretical
wins with a high draw rate, etc.

Why is that interesting? Who wants to watch a GM play badly?

It's only "bad" compared to theory.

Not so. A game is good or it's bad. It may be that a bad game is
misinterpreted by chess fans as being good, but that doesn't make it
good.

People want to see
contests that determine which player plays better - I don't think
anyone cares much about being consistent with some
theoretical result.


People want to watch wrestling, too. What's your point? Chess is not a
spectator sport.

Chess is *already* more-than-sufficiently uninteresting even for most
people who would claim to play the game.

It is uninteresting because people like you don't want
GMs to contest their games.

No, that's a spectacular non-sequitur.

First of all, I *do* want GMs to contest their games. There's nothing
I like better than watching a well-contested game, especially if it
ends in a draw.

Secondly, even if there is someone somewhere who does not want GMs to
contest their games, that would exert ZERO influence upon the manner
in which individual GMs choose to conduct their careers. The
difference between most (it seems to be most) chess fans and me is
that I recognise that uncontested games are a necessary--that is,
entirely indispensable part of GM tournaments. If GMs think it's a
good idea to play an uncontested game, who the **** am I to tell them
how to behave?

The same goes for you, and all chess fans everywhere.

That's what we're trying
to solve.


Right, and my point is that *you're asking the WRONG questions*. If
you ask the WRONG questions then even if you get the RIGHT answers,
because the QUESTIONS were the WRONG questions, there is ZERO chance
of your divining a useful answer.

If we found drawn
positions with low draw rates and equal White and
Black win rates, we could use these as tiebreak
positions in tournament settings.

Who would be prepared to play such endings, having already reached a
tiebreak?

Who knows? But, as I recall, many players and fans weren't
too keen about the FIDE blitz rules either.

That's true. It was a bad idea.

Throwing players
into interesting positions at classical time controls seems to be
at least worth discussing.


Is anyone of note discussing it?

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 27 Mar, 01:53, "David Kane" wrote:
Evolution/quantum mechanics provide explanations
for a vast array of important questions.


Yes, and the former is likely a good explanation. The latter may or
may not be (the jury is still out).

In what way is the jury still out?



Scientifically, you've got a reasonable hypothesis that
has not yet been shown to have any bearing on the
matter under discussion. I'm sorry if you don't like
that.

Oh, but it does. If chess were a win for white there would be fewer
draws. (Like I already stated, illiterate moron).

Supply some evidence for this. (Restating something is not evidence)


Restating EVIDENCE is evidence. Jesus you're an illiterate.

It's called INFORMATOR, ****wit.


Does Informator discuss a chesslike game which has
proven to be a win for one side, and also give drawing statistics
for that game, showing them to be lower than chess' drawing
rate? If so, please supply an exact citation. If not,
it isn't evidence in support of the claim "If chess were a win
for white there would be fewer draws."

You simply don't understand what evidence is.

On 27 Mar, 20:22, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 27 Mar, 01:53, "David Kane" wrote:
Evolution/quantum mechanics provide explanations
for a vast array of important questions.

Yes, and the former is likely a good explanation. The latter may or
may not be (the jury is still out).

In what way is the jury still out?


Well, for example, there was an article in New Scientist (20 Jan 2007)
which suggested that the basis of the universe might best be explained
in terms of fractals. That's an oversimplification, but I didn't want
to tax your obviously-limited intellect.

Quantum mechanics seems good to me, BTW, but, unlike Creationism, it's
not set in stone, is the point. Superstrings enjoyed a vogue which
appears to have waned. New theories all the time. Securing funding is
the key, of course.






Scientifically, you've got a reasonable hypothesis that
has not yet been shown to have any bearing on the
matter under discussion. I'm sorry if you don't like
that.

Oh, but it does. If chess were a win for white there would be fewer
draws. (Like I already stated, illiterate moron).

Supply some evidence for this. (Restating something is not evidence)

Restating EVIDENCE is evidence. Jesus you're an illiterate.

It's called INFORMATOR, ****wit.

Does Informator discuss a chesslike game which has
proven to be a win for one side, and also give drawing statistics
for that game, showing them to be lower than chess' drawing
rate?

No. It's a survey of recent GM praxis. All of that GM praxis supports
the argument that chess is a draw. This is known as scientific proof.
It's clear that your very limited intellect struggles with such
concepts.

Perhaps the nickel will *never* drop. Consider that possibility.


If so, please supply an exact citation. If not,
it isn't evidence in support of the claim "If chess were a win
for white there would be fewer draws."


Oh it supports that argument absolutely.

You simply don't understand what evidence is.

No, that would be you.

On Mar 27, 11:03 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

ups.com...

I like the idea. It would mean that endgame preparation would take on
increased importance.

Are you saying that you like the idea in the way I proposed it
(as an alternate to some of the unconventional blitz tie-breaks
that have been employed) or as sort of a checkers-style
(play both sides of given position) approach to the game?

I'm not ready to go the latter route. I think other steps I've
discussed have a good chance of increasing the contestedness
of games and reducing the draw rates.


I think the latter route might be useful for say, a novelty
tournament, like a thematic tournament. In an on-line environment, it
would be easy to do this... But yes, I was mainly affirming the
proposal.

On 26 Mar 2007 15:16:41 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it.

But, what's the picture, Houlsby? You're still not seeing the picture.

Oh, I know what you meant. It's not my favourite Rembrandt. That would
be this one:

http://www.nd.edu/~agutting/RembrandtYgwindowsill.jpg

Hmmm. The chessboard must have been obliterated in some later
restoration.

No. It's a survey of recent GM praxis. All of that GM praxis supports
the argument that chess is a draw. This is known as scientific proof.

This is known as a sociology. Arguments are known as rhetoric.

There is not even a 'scientific' hypothesis which can predict the /basis/
for WDL in chess. There are only sociological records, or studies of current
chess praxis, which do not resolve anything of the theoretical basis, no
matter if every single GM asserts chess is a draw.

Both sides in chess do not start equal, since one has the first move - and
this grants white an /initial/ initiative, and in general practice this
seems to reward white with more wins than loses.

But is there anything which refutes the /idea/ that over time this
commitment of the first move becomes a liability? As i wrote before, the
Idea 'Black always wins' cannot be theoretically disputed, since we must
quickly admit we don't know how to determine if its true or not!

If David Kane is stating that current results and also GM opinion do not
make a /theoretical proof/ of either WDL, he is right! It is evidence only
of current praxis, but the question WDL is unknown from a theoretical
basis - to such an extent that no viable hypothesis is on the table to
investigate or determine an answer. --such an hypothesis is a constituent
part of 'evidence'

Phil Innes

It's clear that your very limited intellect struggles with such
concepts.

Perhaps the nickel will *never* drop. Consider that possibility.


If so, please supply an exact citation. If not,
it isn't evidence in support of the claim "If chess were a win
for white there would be fewer draws."


Oh it supports that argument absolutely.

You simply don't understand what evidence is.

No, that would be you.

On 28 Mar, 13:55, "Chess One" wrote:
No. It's a survey of recent GM praxis. All of that GM praxis supports
the argument that chess is a draw. This is known as scientific proof.

This is known as a sociology.

Not a bit of it. It's not even remotely related to sociology. Reality
and you are strangers, Phil.

Arguments are known as rhetoric.


Not always.

There is not even a 'scientific' hypothesis which can predict the /basis/
for WDL in chess.

Sure there is. I've stated it many times. I'm not going to state it
again for an illiterate **** like you.

There are only sociological records, or studies of current
chess praxis, which do not resolve anything of the theoretical basis, no
matter if every single GM asserts chess is a draw.


Sure they do. It's a simple argument, which is supported by all of the
evidence. Of course, an illiterate **** like you, Phil, would have
*no* chance of understanding such a thing.

Both sides in chess do not start equal, since one has the first move - and
this grants white an /initial/ initiative, and in general practice this
seems to reward white with more wins than loses.


Even if that's true, (statistically white performs slightly better
than black) the point is that it's as near equal as makes no
difference if both sides avoid making a decisive error. This is what
is meant when one asserts that chess is a draw.

But is there anything which refutes the /idea/ that over time this
commitment of the first move becomes a liability?

Yes. It's called: *all of the available pertinent evidence*.

As i wrote before, the
Idea 'Black always wins' cannot be theoretically disputed, since we must
quickly admit we don't know how to determine if its true or not!


That's the royal "we", I take it. Anyone who's even moderately good at
the game (which is to say: better than being merely "nearly an IM")
*does* know how to determine if it's true or not. Their *praxis*
determines that absent a decisive mistake no *position* is ever
lost... that is: the position cannot be evaluated +- or -+.

If David Kane is stating that current results and also GM opinion do not
make a /theoretical proof/ of either WDL, he is right!

Sure, but so what? Theory clearly demonstrates that chess is a draw.

It is evidence only
of current praxis,

Not just current praxis, but praxis throughout history.


but the question WDL is unknown from a theoretical
basis - to such an extent that no viable hypothesis is on the table to
investigate or determine an answer. --such an hypothesis is a constituent
part of 'evidence'


Sure there is. I have given one, several times. I'm not going to state
it again for an illiterate **** like you, since you can't read
anyways.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes